[PDF] Louder than words? - The European Partnership for Democracy PDF Final-Review-Book.pdf

4 1 The search for an EU definition of democracy 34 competition from undemocratic global powers like China and Russia, the 2009 Agenda for Action is

29 avr 2014 · parliament For example, see H L A Hart, The Concept of Law (Oxford, 1994), pp149-50 Is the EU undemocratic because people do not vote?

[PDF] Louder than words? - The European Partnership for Democracy

4 1 The search for an EU definition of democracy 34 competition from undemocratic global powers like China and Russia, the 2009 Agenda for Action is

[PDF] The European Unions Democratic Deficit and Options for EU

15 août 2014 · widely acknowledged as a successful example of economic “The EU is not fundamentally undemocratic; it simply needs to be judged by a

[PDF] Global consultations on the EUs role in - International IDEA

19 See for example the Commission paper The European Union: Furthering Recent undemocratic practices in Mauritania and Madagascar have been fiercely

[PDF] “ Democracy in Europe can no longer be taken for granted” - Demos

include changes in citizens' attitudes that may be undemocratic While there is reviews some examples of democratic backsliding in seven EU member states

[PDF] Legitimacy Gap and the European Union: Competing Conceptions

The European Union's democratic foundations have attracted much scholarly attention for example - would certainly bolster the social aspect of legitimacy undemocratic, have picked up on this topic (cf www eurocritic demon co uk)

[PDF] The Eurozones Crisis of Democratic Legitimacy Can the EU

More information on the European Union is available on http://europa eu At its most basic level, however, following Max Weber's definition, democratic power (read Germany) an undemocratic advantage in the closed door negotiating

[PDF] EU support for democracy and peace in the world - European

EU funding has been vital for organising elections in transition countries, for example in Somalia in 2016, where the EU provided 40 of the donor funding, which

[PDF] Democratic Legitimacy and Political Leadership in the European

For example, this could be done through a courageous (and less problematic) European Union: Towards the 2014 European Elections”, which was held in Rome on 18 We may bemoan the increasingly undemocratic and elitist way major

[PDF] eu wto case boeing

[PDF] eu 12

[PDF] eu 13

[PDF] eu 15

[PDF] eu 25 countries

[PDF] eu ukraine association agreement

[PDF] eu12

[PDF] eu13

[PDF] eudaimonia aristotle

[PDF] eudaimonia is an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue

[PDF] eular ankylosing spondylitis

[PDF] eular guidelines axspa

[PDF] euler characteristic circle

[PDF] euler characteristic examples

[PDF] euler characteristic klein bottle

Agence Française de Coopération Médias (CFI) | Article19 | Danish Institute for Parties and Democracy (DIPD) | Demo Finland | elbarlament | European Association for Local Democracy (ALDA) | European Centre for Electoral Support (ECES) | Netherlands Helsinki Committee (NHC) | Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy (NIMD) | OneWorld | The Oslo Center | People in Need (PIN) | The Universidade Católica Portuguesa | Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD) | World Leadership Alliance - Club de Madrid

Louder than words?

Connecting the dots of European

democracy support © September 2019 European Partnership for Democracy (EPD) EPD publications are independent of specific national or political interests.

This publication can be downloaded at www.epd.eu

EUROPEAN PARTNERSHIP FOR DEMOCRACY (EPD)

The European democracy support network

Rue Froissart 123-133

1040 Bruxelles

+32 2 733 2282
info@epd.eu

Foreword 2

Acknowledgements 4

Abbreviations 5

List of Tables and Figures 7

Executive Summary 8

1 Introduction 12

2 Setting the Scene: the EU and Democracy Support 14

2.1 Democracy as a concept 14

2.2 A short history of democracy support and the EU 19

3 Democracy today: autocratisation and new challenges 26

3.1 State of democracy in the world 26

3.2 Challenges to democracy 30

4 Policy 34

4.1 The search for an EU definition of democracy 34

4.2 The EU policy framework 38

4.3 EU foreign policy: credibility and competition 53

5 Programming & Funding 61

5.1 The funding data 61

5.2 The approach: the state and how change happens 75

6 Democracy support architecture 88

6.1 Who does what? 88

6.2 The consequences of the institutional set-up 91

6.3 The capacity to coordinate 95

7 Findings & Recommendations 98

Annexes: summaries of country case studies 106

Armenia 106

Honduras 111

Tunisia 115

Zimbabwe 120

Foreword

For over seventy years, the Member States of the European Union and its predecessors have been

strengthening their democracies on the European continent. From access to information to an

independent judiciary, from media freedom to LGBT rights - their defense demands our vigilance every day, but Europe has become a haven of democratic values and human rights compared to many other parts of the world. Nevertheless, the European Union has a mixed track record on global democracy support. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the accession to membership of the Union was a strong magnet for many Central and Eastern European countries in their quest towards democracy. We saw how complex the democratization process can be, and that the road towards an open democracy has many hurdles. The EU is not always in the position to compel member States to respect their own obligations and engagements, and to help citizens defend the achievements of previous years. Outside Europe, the picture is equally mixed. For decades, some autocratic regimes have been tacitly

supported by the EU. Other regimes, often perceived as lacking geopolitical importance, were

confronted with more principled EU action and saw their development cooperation frozen. Meanwhile, countless human rights defenders and civil society organizations have been supported by

the EU, even in extremely difficult situations. The EIDHR and other financial instruments continue to

play an invaluable role for those courageous individuals who, across the globe, stand for the very democratic values on which the EU has been built.

Article 21 of the Lisbon Treaty clearly states that the EU shall seek to advance democracy worldwide;

it is therefore not an option, it is an obligation to be respected in all European policies. In today's

context, the urgency is clear. The optimistic years after the fall of the Berlin Wall are behind us. Democratic values are under attack at an unprecedented scale, even by some elected leaders. In the view of Naomi Klein, who is a far-seeing analyst of societal developments, we are perhaps witnessing 3

the first signs of what she calls 'barbarism': the renewed rise of ideologies that attempt to justify

exclusion, oppression and aggression. Klein finds an explanation for this phenomenon in the increasing

threats formed by the global climate crisis and the ever harsher competition for natural resources; brutality needs an excuse. This makes the support of democratic values all the more important. It is only through the respect

for the rights of all individuals that we may hope to avoid conflict and violence. No governance system

serves this objective better than democracy. However much they may differ, democratic societies

are better able to respect human rights and serve the interests of the vast majority. They value checks

and balances, and governments are held to account by citizens, by civil society and by a free media. Democracies protect minorities and vulnerable groups, offering inclusive decision making processes and seeking agreed solutions. The EU needs to give a new meaning and a new reality to its obligation to support democracy and human rights, and it needs to act now. At the start of the mandate of a new European Commission and the definition of the policies and the EU budget for the years to come, the EU and its Member

States should be bold in their ambitions to continue to serve and support democratic values

worldwide. This demands a genuine EU strategy for the support to democracy. This will also demand more dedicated staff on the issue at the EEAS and the Commission. And all EU institutions, including

the European Parliament and the Court of Auditors, need to recognize that there is a specific approach

required for supporting democracy. It must be flexible, it needs to have a long term approach, and it

needs to acknowledge the option that difficulties will often arise, and that sometimes failure may occur. With this publication, the European Partnership for Democracy (EPD) offers its recommendations on the support to democracy by the EU and its Member States. We are a group of European civil society organizations. Each of us has contributed to the recommendations from our specific expertise on democracy support.

My deepest gratitude goes out to all contributors, and in particular to Ken Godfrey, executive director

of EPD, for the tremendous and timely work he and his team have delivered here.

Thijs Berman

Executive Director,

The Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy (NIMD)

Vice-President of the Board of EPD.

Acknowledgements

EPD would like to thank those who have contributed to this report directly and indirectly over the last

18 months. Firstly, the EPD Board for following the process from the very beginning, particularly the

Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy for providing the initial funding. Secondly, those organisations that have co-organised or helped organise workshops with us: Forum

2000, the European Parliament, the European Association for Local Democracy, the Instituto de

Estudos Políticos, the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy, International IDEA, the

Westminster Foundation for Democracy, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Demo Finland, the European Commission, the European External Action Service and particularly Carnegie Europe for the multiple dinner discussions dedicated to European democracy support. A major thanks to all of the researchers who contributed to the stand alone papers and background

research: Hugo Knoppert, Imed Abdeljaoued, Hasmik Grigoryan, Miguel Cálix Martinez, Nathan

Vandeputte and Laura Luciani. A particular thanks to Nathan Vandeputte for his input and discussions along the way. This report was prepared by Sebastian Bloching, Ines Calvo, Ken Godfrey, Leon Hemkemeyer, Ruth- Marie Henckes, Elsa Pacella and Sergio Rodriguez Prieto. 5

Abbreviations

EU European Union

ACP African, Caribbean and Pacific countries

AFD Agence Française de Développement

CSO Civil Society Organisation

CSO-LA Civil Society Organisations and Local Authorities (as part of the

Development Cooperation Instrument)

CEPA Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women

COHOM Council working party on human rights

DRC Democratic Republic of Congo

DG COMM Directorate-General for Communication

DG CONNECT Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology DG JUST Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers DG DEVCO Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development DG NEAR Directorate-General for the European Neighbourhood Policy and

Enlargement Negotiations

EAP Eastern Partnership

EOM Election Observation Mission

EDF European Development Fund

EEAS European External Action Service

EIDHR European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights

ENI European Neighbourhood Instrument

ENP European Neighbourhood Policy

EUMS European Union Member States

HR/VP High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy

HRDCS Human Rights and Democracy Country Strategy

ICSP Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace

IPA Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

6 ISPA Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

MEP Member of the European Parliament

MENA Middle East and North Africa

MFF Multiannual Financial Framework

MIP Multiannual Indicative Programme

NDICI Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument ODIHR Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights

ODA Official Development Assistance

OSCE Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe PHARE Poland and Hungary Assistance for Restructuring of Economies

PEA Political Economy Analysis

QMV Qualified Majority Voting

RBA Rights Based Approach

SAPARD Special Accession Programme for Agricultural and Rural Development SIGMA Support for Improvement in Governance and Management

SIDA Swedish International Development Agency

TAIEX Technical Assistance and Information

UK United Kingdom

UN United Nations

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

US United States

UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights

USAID US Agency for International Development Assistance

V-Dem Varieties of Democracy Institute

Figures

Figure 1 Global levels of democracy, 2008-2018 28

Figure 2 Share of government and civil society support out of total ODA 62 Figure 3 Democracy support as share of total EU budget (2014 2017) 62 Figure 4 Share of Government and Civil Society support out of total ODA per country (2016) 66
Figure 5 Total of average of funds distributed per regime type from 2013 to 2017 67

Tables

Table 1 Two generations of democracy pilot exercises 42 Table 2 Overview of EU policy documents linked to democracy 50 Table 3 Calls for Proposals from the European Union 2014-2018 broken down by sector/theme 70
8

Executive Summary

European support for democracy is at a crossroads. The next decade will have a major bearing on what democracy means for the European Union (EU) at a time of increasing awareness of fundamental technological change, climate risks, demographic adjustment and power shifts between and within

continents. Democratic governance should no longer be taken for granted within Europe or in

European foreign policy. Political choices will need to be made that determine how important democracy is for European states and what to do as a consequence. It is with these choices in mind that we embarked, 18 months ago, on a review of European support for democracy. This has included several stand-alone papers on democracy support and numerous multi-stakeholder meetings with academics, activists, civil society, donors, experts, policy-makers and think-tanks. The review looked at what European democracy support has achieved (the past), what can be improved today (the present) and where democracy support should be headed (the future). There were some things we expected to find in this review and there were also some surprises. Democracy offers us the greatest potential for achieving sustainable development, respect for human rights and long-term stability. But democracy is not a perfect political system and can be dominated

by powerful interest groups, short-termism, identity politics and the translation of healthy

competition into conflict or violence. Today, these challenges are more real than ever. Past |How successful has European democracy support been until now? Europe plays a key role in the minds of pro-democracy actors around the world, on the international stage and in terms of both political and financial support. Accession criteria to the EU have been a major success in promoting democratic governance in Europe over the last half century. This spread 9 of democracy around Europe has been one of the most remarkable changes in governance in recent

human history. In the last decade, European states have been at the forefront of assisting democratic

development in Ukraine, Myanmar, Colombia, Georgia, the Gambia and many other countries. Yet, our review has shown that it is very difficult to say how successful European democracy support has

been overall. This is in part because of the need to look at specific countries to see what democracy

support looks like in practice; and in part because there is simply no reliable and comparable data on how much money is spent on democracy support. A proper policy analysis of democracy support is not possible because most EU member states do not have a clear policy. Neither, it must be said, does the EU. No overarching policy framework means no clear definition, strategy, approach or objectives on democracy support. Comparing the policies

or adding up aid figures is also exceedingly difficult, because of the different ways of categorising

funding and the diverse characteristics assigned to democracy. It is therefore necessary to look at specific country cases to drill down on what is being achieved. We looked at four countries. In Armenia, the EU and member states have consistently supported democracy in the country and contributed to a flourishing civic society, yet democracy assistance

programmes often failed to tackle the underlying obstacles to sustainable democratisation like a fair

judicial system and media independence. In Zimbabwe, European democracy assistance made

positive contributions to civil society, the reform of the constitution and the judiciary, but there are

indications that EU engagement also had unintended side-effects particularly through the use of sanctions. Tunisia, on the other hand, has seen significant support with limited direct impact from European actors, in part due to the overwhelming focus of engagement on stability through support to economic development and the security sector. In Honduras, European support has had difficulty activities were complementary, such as human rights and election observation. There are thus clear success stories from European democracy support in these countries, but the mixed results push us to look at how to learn from challenges and build on successes. Present | How to consolidate and enhance European democracy support today?

Several specific steps could be taken at both policy and operation level, as well as in the way money

is spent. First off, European states need a democracy support policy framework that guides EU democracy support and frames it within foreign policy and development objectives. This framework should consider democracy support as a tool of EU policy rather than democracy as a normative and 10 often unfulfilled principle. An overall framework would tackle several challenges identified in our review, including the need for greater clarity of purpose and improved coordination. Secondly, an effort must also be made in improving our understanding of what works and what does not the dearth of policy level analysis is glaring. This needs to be complemented by the systematic collection of comparative data. Development aid is under pressure from greater citizen scrutiny around Europe and it seems as though a certain fear of poor results hinders the development of a stronger evidence base. This is a strategic mistake. Democracy support needs to confront failures, understand successes and build on them before it is too late. Finally, the way money is spent could be enhanced through focusing on change rather than process.

We offer suggestions for doing this, including diverting funds from the executive branch of

government when democratic breakdown occurs in a country. On the flip side, reformers need to be supported financially through a rapid financial response following a sudden democratic breakthrough. Future | What key features could a new democracy support policy be built upon? Europe must be bold. The international system is changing before our eyes in a manner that is more rapid than ever before and the place of democratic politics looks less certain than a decade ago. We must recognise that supporting democracy is a political challenge it will take concerted commitment and perseverance. Citizens should be a core target for democracy supporters, in Europe and elsewhere. Education on

democratic principles in schools must not shy away from tackling the negatives of democratic politics.

We cannot say that democracy is perfect but we can teach the importance of working within the system. European states should give serious consideration to the creation of a European Democracy Academy that can improve our knowledge of democratic development and school professionals from different spheres on democratic politics. Europe is the home of a certain strand of democracy that has morphed and developed over the centuries to what we see today. It will continue to mutate. European states need to be a forefront of this innovation and show global leadership on democratic governance. A global conference on

democracy held in Europe on an annual basis with the participation of heads of state is a first step in

asserting leadership. The power of political symbols should not be lost in the here and now. 11

FIVE KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Strengthen our understanding of democracy support

2. Accord greater importance to democracy

3. Develop a policy framework on democracy support

4. Innovate to match current challenges

5. Dedicate greater resources to manage coordination

12 1.

Introduction

In early 2018, the European Partnership for Democracy began a process of taking stock of European

efforts to support democracy around the world over the last decade. There followed a series of stand-

alone papers, countless interviews, numerous workshops and a series of rich brainstorming sessions

that attempted to analyse the challenges and opportunities for the future. This final report captures

the findings and recommendations from our research. A Eurobarometer survey conducted in 2018 found that 73% of Europeans want the EU to be more involved in support to democracy and peace in the world.1 The European Parliament Research Service an expectation 2 Democracy is a system

that is widely held as beneficial to citizens, even if the nitty gritty of supporting it is a much less

frequent subject of discussion.

Analysis of democracy support typically falls within a series of categories that each have their merits

and drawbacks. There is a wealth of macro level data on the state of democracy in different countries

that allows researchers and policy-makers to track the developments of democratic governance over time. Macro level research on democracy support includes cross-national quantitative analyses that compare development aid and democratisation. In both cases, the data is vital - including for this report - but the research does not tell donors how to spend money or activists how to support democratisation. Cross-country comparative analysis is useful in showing where democracy support has been more successful but often fails to identify what exactly it was that made that support successful.

1 Based on Eurobarometer analysed by the European Parliamentary Research Service. Zamfir, I. and Doreva, A. EU support

for democracy and peace in the world (2019)

2 Ibid.

13 On the other end of the spectrum, democracy support programmes undergo evaluations that look at

the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, and sustainability in order to identify lessons for

the future. Sometimes these evaluations will use innovative evaluation techniques to try to zero-in on the contribution of a specific programme to particular political outcomes. Nevertheless, the

evaluations almost never link to policies or donor priorities in relation to those programmes. In fact,

with some notable exceptions, there is a stunning lack of policy level analysis in democracy support.

This report attempts to fill the gap in policy-relevant research by mixing country analyses with new quantitative data and a thorough examination of policies and institutional dynamics. As part of our research, we commissioned local researchers to conduct an in-depth analyses of European democracy support in 4 countries: Armenia, Honduras, Tunisia and Zimbabwe. These countries were selected for the diversity in democratic experiences they represent both positive and negative - as well as the

differences in EU approach due to their different locations and varied political realities including

the use of sanctions, differing trade preferences, geopolitical concerns and levels of financial

assistance. The researchers were instructed to look at the context of European democracy support, the relevance, consistency, complementarity and impact of European democracy support (summaries of each report are contained in the Annex to this report). We also conducted analyses of EU funding data for democracy support, commissioned a review of academic literature on EU democracy support and compared the democracy support policies of different European governments. Our goal in writing this report is to contribute to an improvement in European efforts to support democracy around the world. In this, we hope that the findings and recommendations are useful for

policy-makers, donors, activists, practitioners and researchers in their own work supporting

democracy. The report focuses mostly on the European Union while noting the vital role played by EU member states in shaping and contributing to European democracy support. We also looked primarily at democracy support in foreign policy while recognising that European actors have a key role to play in supporting democracy within Europe. Several chapters touch on this without looking into the policies and programmes within the Union, particularly because these are far less developed than those facing the world outside Europe. This will certainly change in the coming years. We begin with a look at the history of the EU and democracy (chapter 2) before moving on to where

democracy stands in the world today (chapter 3). The next three chapters are the core of the analysis

of all of the research conducted over the last 18 months. Chapter 4 looks at European democracy support policy, the next chapter looks at programming and funding (chapter 5) before we turn to a review of the democracy support architecture in Europe (chapter 6). The final chapter summarises the findings from the research and offers recommendations for dealing with each of those findings in turn, including specific recommended actions (chapter 7). 14 2.

Setting the Scene: the EU and

Democracy Support

Article 2 of the Treaty of the EU asserts that democracy is a founding value of the EU, along with human dignity, freedom, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights. The European project is intricately linked to democratic governance and in some senses the steady progress of democracy global plateauing of democracy has come during a moment when EU expansion also seems stuck. But how did this link come about? And what has the EU done to support democracy so far? This section first looks at democracy itself, its definition and the link to the EU, before moving on to defining democracy support and revisiting the recent history of EU support for democracy.

2.1 Democracy as a concept

What is democracy?

A wide range of conceptualisations of democracy exist in academic spheres, including classical,

republican, liberal, direct, elitist, pluralist, socialist, deliberative and cosmopolitan readings.3 A

3 Vandeputte, N., Luciani, L. European Union Democracy Assistance: An Academic State of Play (2018). Available here.

15 political decisions which realizes the common good by making the people themselves decide on issues through the e4 In contrast, deliberative democracy puts more emphasis on the transformation of private preferences via a

process of deliberation into positions that can withstand public scrutiny.5 As such, other than through

representative measures, it seeks the direct input of the citizenry through deliberative polls, e- government or referenda.6

Within each of these categories there is also contestation. For example, the liberal notion of

democracy through a Lockean reading would emphasise the need for economic freedoms, including private property as the basis for individual and political freedoms. In contrast, a Dahlian reading emphasises political freedom, meaning that democracy can only be reached when citizens enjoy

effective participation and voting equality, when equality is extended to all people within the state

(i.e. inclusiveness) and when they have an enlightened understanding and control of the political agenda. The significant variation in understandings of democracy can also be conceptualised through the lens

of thick and thin definitions.7 The classical definitions of Schumpeter and Dahl are usually considered

to fall within the more minimal thin conceptions of democracy with Schumpeter being less expansive e by the many) are political participation and contestation within a representative system.8 Both definitions may thin side of the spectrum and contrasts wit to be used more frequently in North America than in Europe and captures thicker ideas of democracy that go beyond contestation in elections. These thicker conceptions include other features like the

rule of law, the separation of powers, accountable governing institutions and protections for

individual rights (including minorities). The variation in conceptions of democracy is neatly captured

through the Varieties of Democracy Index that is updated on a yearly basis and includes rankings of countries according to different conceptions of democracy (see chapter 2).

4 Schumpeter, J.A., Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (1976).

5 Held, D., Models of Democracy (2006).

6 Warren, M.E., Designing Deliberative Democracy (2008).

7 For a useful breakdown see Weber, M.A., Global Trends in Democracy: Background, U.S. Policy, and Issues for Congress

(2018).

8 Dahl, R., On Democracy (1998), gives 7 key elements to polyarchy: elected officials who control decision-making; free, fair

and frequent elections; freedom of expression; access to alternative information; associational autonomy; inclusive suffrage

and the right to run for office. 16 All of these conceptions see elections as the core of democratic politics even if there is a growing movement that suggests that elections can be problematic for democracies.9 There has also been a small but noticeable shift in political science towards recognising that a functioning democracy

requires more than what thin notions of democracy entail. In line with this, unless otherwise prefaced

with a qualifier (like representative, direct, deliberate etc), this report understands the concept of

democracy in broad terms. This is reflected in the definition of democracy agreed to by member states of the United Nations in 2004. The resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly declared: freedoms, inter alia, freedom of association and peaceful assembly and of expression and opinion, and the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives, to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic free elections by universal and equal suffrage and by secret ballot guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the people, as well as

a pluralistic system of political parties and organizations, respect for the rule of law, the separation

of powers, the independence of the judiciary, transparency and accountability in public administration, and free, independent and pl.10

While the definition does not reference civil society or the legislative branch directly, it does refer

to both indirectly. This report follows the UN definition, agreed to within a multilateral context and

of a democratic system, as the basis for understanding democracy.

The EU and democracy

Having emerged from the ruins of the Second World War, the EU was founded as a peace project. At the time, the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was designed to prevent any future wars and promote reconciliation through economic integration. As the EU member states (EUMS) progressively expanded and deepened their economic cooperation, the ECSC evolved into the European Economic Community. As the first step to a more political union, the Single European Act in 1986 first acknowledged the importance of democracy to the European project, committing EU member states to work together to promote democracy, in the preambles of the document.11 In an atmosphere of optimism about democracy and European integration in the aftermath of the fall of the Iron Curtain, the Maastricht Treaty of 1993 expanded on the importance of democracy to EU

9 This is epitomised by Van Reybrouck, D., Against Elections: The Case for Democracy (2017).

10 The United Nations, Resolution A/Res/59/201 (2005). Available here.

11 European Parliament, Single European Act (1986). Available here.

17 member states internally and in EU external engagement. The development and consolidation of democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms became an objective of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, enshrined in Article J(1).12 The so-called Copenhagen Criteria for accession to the EU were developed in 1992 and required prospective members to have

13 As a precondition for

In 2007, the importance of democracy to the European project was fully enshrined in EU law through the Treaty of Lisbon, also called the Treaty of the EU.14 Democracy was listed as a founding value

and Article 21 of the Treaty states that the founding values of the EU will guide all EU external action

and that the EU will pro-actively advance these values in its external engagement. It states that: its own creation, development and enlargement, and which it seeks to advance in the wider world: democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law15 Since the consolidation of democracy as a founding value, guiding principle and policy objective in the Lisbon Treaty in 2007, EU documents are abundant with references to democracy. Despite the strong rhetorical commitment to democracy, the EU and several EU member states have been

criticised for a lack of democratic principles over time. The EU itself has justifiably had to deal with

concerns of a lack of transparency and insufficient democratic control and accountability of the European institutions, in particular the European Commission. While the European Parliament has progressively been given and assumed enhanced powers in response to these concerns, a number of initiatives have als-called democratic deficit as part of the priorities of outgoing Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. The European Citizens Initiative (ECI): This instrument was introduced in 2012 and enables 1 million EU citizens from at least seven EU countries to call on the European Commission to propose legislation on matters where the EU has competence to legislate.16 So far only four

12 Official Website of the European Union, Maastricht Treaty, Article J(1) (1992). Available here.

13 European Parliament, Presidency Conclusions Copenhagen European Council (21-22 June 1993). Available here.

14 Official Journal of the European Journal, Treaty of Lisbon: Treaty of the European Union; Treaty of the Functioning of the

European Union (2007). Available here.

15 Official Journal of the European Union, Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union (2016). Available here.

16 Directorate-General for Communication (European Commission), Guide To T.

Available here.

18 states, indicating certain weaknesses in the design of the ECI.17 The ECI aims to make the -making process more participatory.

Dialogues were held in 583

locations, in order to understand c the EU. The European Parliament and national leaders also organised high level debates on the topic. The Citizen Dialogues identified seven key domains where Europeans expect action from the Union, o identity.18 -2024 and the priorities of new Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.19 More recently, EUMS have received criticism for breaching the principles of democracy, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. Since 2015, the governing Law and Justice party in Poland has pushed through measures to weaken institutional checks and balances, amongst others through changes to the judicial system and heightened pressure on media outlets.20 In a very similar manner, the ruling

2010, by limiting the competences of the judiciary, tight media regulations and ownership, and the

adoption of laws restricting non-governmental organisations (NGOs).21 Commentators have also expressed concerns regarding the rule of law and an overbearing executive in Romania and the UK in the last year.22 23 In response to the erosion of democratic institutions in Hungary and Poland, the European Commission has triggered the Article 7 procedure regarding rule of law breaches in Poland in 2017, and the European Parliament later triggered the procedure for Hungary in 2018.24 Article 7 of the Treaty of Lisbon was originally introduced in the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 as Article F1 in view of the accession of new post-communist democracies. The article imposed political conditionality on EUMS,

17 Of the le here.

18 European Commission, Citizens' Dialogues and Citizens' Consultations, Key Conclusions (2019). Available here.

19 European Council, A New Strategic Agenda 2019-2024 (2019). Available here and Ursula von der Leyen, A Union that strives

for more: My agenda for Europe (2019). Available here. 20 (2018). Available here.

21 For more information, see for instance Okotars, Democratic Backsliding and Civil Society Response in Hungary (2018).